5263, i see your point. the overlay is not perfect and the line wans't drawn with good precision. but mostly that's after contact and i think the one who produced the graphic wanted to show the rac path before the contact and how closely it follows the line of target, which it does. no worries tho for mtm that motion is before the contact and not through the contact. and nadal is not the best example of true pull across swinger. so maybe it's no big deal?

5263, i see your point. the overlay is not perfect and the line wans't drawn with good precision. but mostly that's after contact and i think the one who produced the graphic wanted to show the rac path before the contact and how closely it follows the line of target, which it does. no worries tho for mtm that motion is before the contact and not through the contact. and nadal is not the best example of true pull across swinger. so maybe it's no big deal?

Click to expand...

Yes, mostly, but it's the part after the contact that is contested and is what
differs from classic.
good points though

5263:acceleration... you brought it up in 135 I think with this..."There also is no
compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration."

The acceleration 3” before impact is Wegner recommendation. I think it came from martial art and jumpulse.com.

Then you come back in #137 and say, "So, you cannot evaluate speed and
acceleration of the racquet."

You cannot evaluate speed/acceleration from my picture, because I removed some frames to show ball’s path. Again you don’t read my posts carefully.

So first you claim that sudden accel is not there
(never mind MTM does not claim sudden accel),

It did many times.

then come back and say it cannot be evaluated.
I'm just asking, which way you want it?? Are you going to claim it's not there
or claim it cannot be evaluated from the info??

You can evaluate it from original video.

And NO, that is a very poor job with the illustration and shows several inches,
if done to scale, of straight forward swing where there is none and has the
last part of the straight section up at the frame instead of the middle where
it started and was tracking! Those are the critical inches
where the face is coming across.

Everybody can say about any approximation that this one is very poor. This one is excellent, explanation below.

The minute straight section would be the
lead in and rt before contact the face is coming across at greater than the
angle this illustration has at the end of it's straight segment. Don't want to be
mean, but surely you were not that sloppy with your work as an engineer, right?

Nadal rotates his straight arm about shoulder. From shoulder joint point of view, the wrist moves along a perfect circle, because Nadal arm is constantly straight. So, this rotation is absolutely symmetrical relative to the shoulder joint.
If angle between arm and long axis of racquet (ϕ) is zero, there would be no “across aspect” at all. This is just simple geometry. If ϕ=90°, there would be maximum “across aspect”.
Nadal begins rotating his arm with ϕ=90°, if he hits ball in the beginning of the forward swing he could produce maximum “across aspect”.
But, Nadal also rotates the hand around the wrist. Thus, he decreases ϕ angle and inevitably reduces across component of the racquet speed.
Btw, these two independent rotations can move tip of the racquet exactly along the straight line. Even people from New York Time understand that, and they drew partially straight racquet path. They are really smart guys.
Please forget about MTM and try to analyze the matter with open eyes.

The picture 1, clearly demonstrates that around impact, frames from #5 to #7, there is no “special” horizontal across motion at all. It occurs after impact, frame #9.

The picture 2 shows that during contact racquet’s path is almost straight forward. IMO, it must be this way if we want to hit powerful FH.

There also is no compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration.

So far I see zero correlation between Wegner recommendations and real professional game. That’s why virtually nobody can comprehend MTM. We cannot see what is not there.

Click to expand...

Excellent analysis. It is clear that Rafa does not hit 3 balls in a row.

He hits 5.

The overlap in Fig 2 between the racket path and the ball path is telling. The racket clearly moves in the direction of the intended target for the large part, before turning over, as it must.

There is also no abrupt acceleration before impact. The speed keeps increasing, but as per your next post, the acceleration is actually decreasing before impact. The human body cannot sustain continued acceleration of a limb, and that too without sacrificing control.

Nice article with good pics that show clearly on Fh and Bh how the racket
has moved well off the target line shortly after contact.
Clearly he means the very general direction of the target, instead of directly
out towards the target.
It's even more clear that some will see what they intend to see, even after
connico did a pretty good job of fixing that poor NYT illustration pic.

I give you back your own advice above...This must be a language barrier situation.
Clearly there is no straight part to the vid of the swing from contact to finish.
Connico improved the pic 2....did you see that correction?

I don't think it's really possible to settle anything w/ that graphic. You would 1 more angle of the same shot at least. In real life his shoulder joint isn't just sitting there stationary in one location. It's moving with his shoulders. And it's moving with his body. And he's also pushing up with his legs. And his wrist is doing things. And his forearm is pronating. And he's also probably moving a little bit forward maybe. And maybe he's pushing up on a slight angle etc etc. There's a lot going on you can't see from only a top down view.

This reminds me of those followers of Homer Kelly's The Golfing Machine books, and other wannabe sports scientist. They spend all their time arguing and with analysis that doesn't lead to better golf. I bet all this BS doesn't lead to better tennis.

OT-- Golf is light years ahead of tennis when it comes to science, and the arguments are bigger because there are so many ways to hit a golf ball. All you have to do is reach the correct impact position--- How you get there doesn't matter: See Jim Furyk who is number 4 on the All Time Money List.

My only question: In the hands of the right player, can a MTM FH produce the same amount of spin and pace as the FH's we see on the ATP tour?

Please show us a complete MTM FH progression similar to how Fuzzy Yellow Balls and other online teachers demonstrate.

I've purchased MTM videos, and they never break it down like other teachers do.

My only question: In the hands of the right player, can a MTM FH produce the same amount of spin and pace as the FH's we see on the ATP tour?

Please show us a complete MTM FH progression similar to how Fuzzy Yellow Balls and other online teachers demonstrate.

I've purchased MTM videos, and they never break it down like other teachers do.

Click to expand...

Mikey, I understand you are used to others giving more details, but this is designed
specifically without all that micro instruction. That is the area were you are to
grow into it and like you mention with golf, find the way for your body using these
basics. Maybe you prefer more detailed mechanical instruction, but with MTM,
that is big part of instructor training...to not do it that way. After years of training martial
artists, pilots, and tennis, I agree with Oscar on this, but you have your
own thoughts, which I respect for you. FYB shows more details, but also has
way more errors that take you off course.

Yes, in the right hands, MTM will help them to match or exceed the pro results. I've seen that already.
But few will actually get the results of the top touring pros, and fewer will exceed
them, so it is more the question for most is having a similar process (swing) to
approximate their result within your capabilities. IMO, MTM is the best swing
technique system I've seen for this. Complete to the right point, but not over
reaching.

Tennisplayer.net from JY has some amazing slow motion videos that can depict exactly what we are talking about here.

Not trying to sell for JY, but i really feel some picturization will help this discussion immensly.

John Yandell, i am a member, can i take a sequence of still shots from one of your videos and post it here?

Click to expand...

I agree. Lots of great video and you can clearly see from the rear views, how the racket
is immediately moving inside the ball path on normal baseline TS shots.
Unless you don't want to see that,
JY has confirmed it as well, putting it more in his words about how the stroke
works on an arc thru extension.

to me extension would be the amount of arm abduction ie the space between elbow and torso after the hit. hitting thru 3 balls would be the racquet head following the ball on a direct line to the target for 3 balls length. so you could hit through 3 balls and also have full extension or not hit thru 3 and and still have full extension or have poor extension and hit thru 3 etc. that's my understanding.

to me extension would be the amount of arm abduction ie the space between elbow and torso after the hit. hitting thru 3 balls would be the racquet head following the ball on a direct line to the target for 3 balls length. so you could hit through 3 balls and also have full extension or not hit thru 3 and and still have full extension or have poor extension and hit thru 3 etc. that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

sounds reasonable, but like the linear/angular thing, these terms have some normal use
on the forum that does not lend itself to keeping it that straight for a discussion.
thanks

to me extension would be the amount of arm abduction ie the space between elbow and torso after the hit. hitting thru 3 balls would be the racquet head following the ball on a direct line to the target for 3 balls length. so you could hit through 3 balls and also have full extension or not hit thru 3 and and still have full extension or have poor extension and hit thru 3 etc. that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

Don't know to that level of detail, but it seems to me like this: Sometimes you see pros smacking a ball cross-court rather flat. I would think that for the ball to go in that direction, the strings must be moving towards the path and remain perpendicular to it. Eventually, the racket comes across. In theory, it could stop immediately after impact and the ball would not know. But we need to have a full swing across because we cannot achieve the flow before the impact otherwise (holding back). If more topspin was desired, the strings would have a more grazing action on the ball and would be moving across more, even before impact.

So there must be a difference in the movement of the racket face before impact in the two cases. So this is not like a penalty kick in soccer. In that situation, you can argue that the foot could always follow the same path - if contact was made towards the middle of the ball (and below it), it would go straight, if it was made towards an edge, it would go towards the opposite direction. That is because the toe region is small compared to the ball. In tennis, it is the opposite. The racket face is much bigger (and the ball is moving).

Wouldn't be difficult to determine rhs from a graphic like that because that kind of pic only shows the horizontal movement? What about the low to high movement and the wrist flex and pronation which all contribute to the speed of the face. You can't really see the wrist and forearm movement contributions in that pic only horizontal movement of the entire racquet. no?

So even if the arm itself isn't accelerating at contact the racquet head should be because of the above movements. You can't see wrist and forearm movements in that pic but we all know it's there and with nadal he uses a lot.

I think I realize what is going on. Toly will probably appreciate this. Nadal's intended racket face contact point follows an arc such that it joins smoothly to a straight line (the intended direction of "3 balls") - and is in a perpendicular plane at contact to the path. It is a case of matching two curves so that the junction is smooth - typically that means the first derivatives or tangents are the same at the point of contact. This is how curves are joined in computer graphics.

In the vertical plane, there is an upward movement to produce topspin - but again he joins smoothly to the vertical component of the target path..

Given that he wants to swing on the ball so that it goes up (for topspin) and forward (for pace), you can imagine that he has defined a 3D line segment modeling the ball path just after impact (when the effect of TS and gravity are still relatively small compared to the impact force). Then he has orchestrated a curved path for his strings with a combination of arm and elbow motion so as to meet the line segment in a continuous fashion.

It shows what Pappas of Revolutionary tennis says - the idea is to rotate into the ball, not hit across it.

very nice work with the Nadal pics, for me it has a few problems based on our
earlier
discussion though, ...if I understand what you are showing.
Seems it only shows the incoming ball path, not the outgoing path, which
is the target line, right?

Seems we have the path leading to contact with spaces growing slightly showingaccel? right?

No outward target line means we can't see if there is action across the target line or
not.No racket movement shown after contact also means we cant see if it's moving
across at and from contact, right?
Seems odd that without that info you conclude no across??

I agree your work shows the wrist catching up, although we can't be sure why
from this. I think I know, but so what, right?

It has to move across the body after contact as his arm cannot grow longer and longer.

The main thing is how to describe the motion before contact. The ball could care less what happens after contact. Racket deceleration and momentum will take care of it. The after is important only because it is a human being subject to limitations. I could design a robot arm which does the same and abruptly brakes must faster than humans - ball would still behave the same.

The other thing is that Rafa also hits forehands with much more pronounced grazing action when he wants to play certain kinds of shots, when his swing path will be on a glancing trajectory from before impact.

It has to move across the body after contact as his arm cannot grow longer and longer.

Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming my point.
You also mention it care not what happens after, but confuse that it cares
what happens before??
It's actually about the same...as before and after are just indicators of will or
has happened at contact.

THe ball only cares or is affected by what happens at contact.

Nadals normal side action on this TS proves there is an across action taking
place during contact.

How can there not be an across action? The question is how that arc stands in relation to the intended path of the ball after impact. It can be less or more tangential.

Click to expand...

Exactly, How can there not be an across action??...but I'm not sure what you mean with the last sentence, and

you have it right that we need the outbound path to know if there is a little
or a lot of across. Nadal can be tougher to see on all this due to his often
extreme upward sweep, putting the across action in a less obvious plane than
those who hit flatter.

I think I realize what is going on. Toly will probably appreciate this. Nadal's intended racket face contact point follows an arc such that it joins smoothly to a straight line (the intended direction of "3 balls") - and is in a perpendicular plane at contact to the path. It is a case of matching two curves so that the junction is smooth - typically that means the first derivatives or tangents are the same at the point of contact. This is how curves are joined in computer graphics.

In the vertical plane, there is an upward movement to produce topspin - but again he joins smoothly to the vertical component of the target path..

Given that he wants to swing on the ball so that it goes up (for topspin) and forward (for pace), you can imagine that he has defined a 3D line segment modeling the ball path just after impact (when the effect of TS and gravity are still relatively small compared to the impact force). Then he has orchestrated a curved path for his strings with a combination of arm and elbow motion so as to meet the line segment in a continuous fashion.

It shows what Pappas of Revolutionary tennis says - the idea is to rotate into the ball, not hit across it.

Click to expand...

Let’s analyze the picture.

Figure1. Racquet path

As we can see in picture, from frame #2 Nadal begins moving the racquet handle to the left along the circle line by using shoulder joint. At the same time, his hand moves the racquet to the right by using the wrist. The arm pronation also moves the racquet to the right. These three rotational motions compensate each other curve and create almost straight line, see black arrow.
So, the tip of the racquet moves in a straight line, but the racquet changes its azimuth orientation. In frame #3 it is red line, in frame #5 it can be yellow line. This kind of motion can help to “catch” the ball, but it is not easy to control the ball outgoing direction.
To stabilize the racquet face azimuth orientation we can move the hand around the wrist in the opposite direction, however we will lose the power and increase steepness of the path. So, it is definitely unwise idea.
There is also problem with topspin motion, which practically moves the racquet perpendicular to the ball outgoing direction. So, it is more difficult to “catch” the ball.

You can't just start at the tip of one of the rackets and draw a straight line thru
where you want it to go as it passes thru more of the rackets and does not
stay at the tip...then say the racket travels in a straight line. lol
I'm saying this even though your mis-info is mostly inline with what I'm saying!

The fact that this segment travels near a straight line as you align with the ball
for contact,
is what I have been sharing all along.

I guess you keep leaving out the across part of the stroke at and after contact for
some reason?

and we still have no outward ball path, right?

and the Main thing is your pic is pretty clear how the hand, the main MTM reference, is working
across prior to contact to such an extent that we can tell that is likely true even without the
outward target line.

You can't just start at the tip of one of the rackets and draw a straight line thru
where you want it to go as it passes thru more of the rackets and does not
stay at the tip...then say the racket travels in a straight line. lol
I'm saying this even though your mis-info is mostly inline with what I'm saying!

The fact that this segment travels near a straight line as you align with the ball
for contact,
is what I have been sharing all along.

I guess you keep leaving out the across part of the stroke at and after contact for
some reason?

and we still have no outward ball path, right?

and the Main thing is your pic is pretty clear how the hand, the main MTM reference, is working
across prior to contact to such an extent that we can tell that is likely true even without the
outward target line.

Click to expand...

First of all give us definition of horizontal “across aspect”. Then explain in what frame exactly before impact Nadal starts producing “across aspect”. I asked you many times already and never got the answer. I just cannot talk about undefined term.

I’m pro in interpolation and approximation. You even cannot imagine what I know about this stuff.:evil:

and the Main thing is your pic is pretty clear how the hand, the main MTM reference, is working
across prior to contact to such an extent that we can tell that is likely true even without the
outward target line.

Click to expand...

Loving this discussion!

My "issue" such as it is with the "working across prior to contact" as an instruction is that if you look at Toly's image, whilst you can see that Rafa's hand is moving across his body in those frames (it has too because it is attached to his arm!), it still maintains the same distance from his body throughout. With an instruction of "working across prior to contact" there is a big danger (imo) of players literally pulling the hand across and therefore closing the distance and likely causing the elbow to rotate out and consequently losing stability.

My "issue" such as it is with the "working across prior to contact" as an instruction is that if you look at Toly's image, whilst you can see that Rafa's hand is moving across his body in those frames (it has too because it is attached to his arm!), it still maintains the same distance from his body throughout. With an instruction of "working across prior to contact" there is a big danger (imo) of players literally pulling the hand across and therefore closing the distance and likely causing the elbow to rotate out and consequently losing stability.

cheers

Click to expand...

The picture below absolutely clearly shows that there is no special horizontal “across aspect” due to the racquet tip constantly moves to the left. Thus, it can create clockwise sidespin or no sidespin at all. But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.

Question for 5263 - slighlty off (current) topic - but a bit closer to the OP's topic

Hands up - I know very little about MTM, Oscar etc.

Looking at some of his video's though the MTM forehand looks incredibly similar to Couriers - one of the first pro's I recall hitting a WW finish.

So to the question - is Couriers forehand typical of the MTM forehand? Albeit he finished across his body rather than over his shoulder.

Click to expand...

Not knowing much about it is fine and why I'm on here.
Courier's Fh, like most of today's top pros is has many elements of MTM. I have
not studied him much and don't have a lot of good vid on him to do so.

Simply he does work from slightly below the contact to pull up and across
the shot. The basic over the shoulder finish is just the starting point for MTM,
and you can finish using the other types as well. I'm not really on board with
defining shots by a finish anyway.

But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.

Click to expand...

I'm beginning to believe you are not an engineer, but just trolling.
Even surehs and other anti Oscar folks have agreed the stroke has "across aspect"

FROM CONTACT & AFTER.

Is that too hard for an engineer to see? You keep showing pics prior to contact
which is irrelevant to this point. Why?? Is this language difficulty?

As to Wegner's comments about sidespin...I expect if he said what you claim,
he was talking about a right hander, but would need a reference to that comment
to be more sure what that is about.

Either way, the pic above is not even addressing the issue.
I'm sorry, toly, but we have done this issue over and over with you seeming
to be the only one who doesn't get it. You might as well post a dog or cat for
evidence of your claims, as you keep showing the wrong part of the swing.

My "issue" such as it is with the "working across prior to contact" as an instruction is that if you look at Toly's image, whilst you can see that Rafa's hand is moving across his body in those frames (it has too because it is attached to his arm!), it still maintains the same distance from his body throughout. With an instruction of "working across prior to contact" there is a big danger (imo) of players literally pulling the hand across and therefore closing the distance and likely causing the elbow to rotate out and consequently losing stability.

The picture below absolutely clearly shows that there is no special horizontal “across aspect” due to the racquet tip constantly moves to the left. Thus, it can create clockwise sidespin or no sidespin at all. But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.

Click to expand...

There is something fishy about this picture. Why does Nadal's racquet handle disappear, and then reappear, during the swing? It seems to me that his racquet path does not match his hand path. Toly?

Prior to contact is the most important, because that is when the velocity is being gathered and the direction set to hit the ball. It is useless to say that what happens before impact does nothing to the ball. Of course it doesn't, but the path before contact is responsible for the contact.

Clearly Nadal is meeting the ball in an arc which approaches the direction to target as the contact gets closer. That determines how the ball will be impacted.

What happens after impact is really unimportant but it is a natural consequence of the stroke and should not be under-emphasized. Just like sprinters don't come to a standstill after a 100m race, it is a physical and psychological aspect of humans.

The closing of the racket around the body also helps in recovery for the next shot. That may be a key reason which I have not seen discussed before. If you keep the racket more out in front, you are off-balance. If you turn it around, you have made yourself more compact and balanced with no floating limbs. An earlier version of this was the advice to catch the racket with the left hand after the swing, though it may not be advisable with today's swing speeds.

Let me know if this kind of video capture helps in analyzing the swing path analysis. i just used 250fps video from JY website and used the arrow keys to go back and forth.
i can do this for FEd,nadal, djo, agassi sampras, etc.
thanks John for the videos.http://youtu.be/YPiEfGA7zkQ

Let me know if this kind of video capture helps in analyzing the swing path analysis. i just used 250fps video from JY website and used the arrow keys to go back and forth.
i can do this for FEd,nadal, djo, agassi sampras, etc.
thanks John for the videos.http://youtu.be/YPiEfGA7zkQ

that is up for discussion. but from analyzing various videos like this of top players, the question to be answered is if the pulling across is a deliberate action or it is a consequence of the swing.
the concept of hitting thru 3-5 balls as being coached at where my sons get coached, i am interested from experts here is it correct. so i dont have any conclusion, but more questions.

that is up for discussion. but from analyzing various videos like this of top players, the question to be answered is if the pulling across is a deliberate action or it is a consequence of the swing.
the concept of hitting thru 3-5 balls as being coached at where my sons get coached, i am interested from experts here is it correct. so i dont have any conclusion, but more questions.

Click to expand...

If that's your question, then, IMO, the notion of hitting through 3-5 balls "after contact" is obsolete. That's not the way to hit with the power and the heavy topspin being used by the top players today.

Having said that, IMO, the swinging across aspect of the swing path is not so much a result of purposely pulling across. (Some here disagree about that). Rather, IMO, it is a function of the correct contact point being so far out front that there's no where else for the arm to go, and of the upper body rotation inherent in a modern stroke before and after contact. If you make contact at the correct point, it would be very awkward, if not impossible, to continue to swing toward the target for 3-5 balls. That is the typical instruction for a traditional forehand hit with a neutral or closed stance where the contact point is between the feet, in front of the chest while the chest is facing the side fence. With a modern forehand, the upper body has rotated before contact so that the chest should be facing the target before contact, and continues to rotate until it faces the other side fence at the finish. That's why an open stance is generally required to fully execute a modern forehand.

Does bent elbow vs locked/straight elbow play any role in contact point? it seems if you play bent elbow then the contact point seems closer to the body and the pulling across is more pronounced or seems deliberate. if straight/locked elbow then the contact point is so far in front the arm just comes in as a consequence..is this what you observe.

5263, why don't you tell toly where you would like the lines placed etc so that he could draw that up so we could see?

Click to expand...

Have I not been clear for him that we are talking ...from contact on... with the racket?

His pics do show how the hand starts to lead the across before contact which
leads to the racket head catching up as he points out.

He should be consistent also with where his lines ref the racket.
Stay tangent to the tip is the best or
next if using the contact point, to keep working thru the successive rackets
at the same spot on the racket.
Does that help?